The  Tariff. 


Farmers,  Iron  Workers  and  Laborers 


THE  TRINITY 


OF  THE  NATION’S 


STRENGTH,  PROGRESS  AND  PROSPERITY 


DC LICK RED  DEVORE  THE  AMERICAN  IRON  AND  STEEL  ASSOCIATION  AT  CHIC  A 0'.  ILL,  MAY  24,  1865. 


HON.  flMOTHY  O.  HOWE 


EX.  U.  S.  SENATOR  AND  POSTMASTER  GENERAL 


RE-PUBLISHED  BY  THE  NORTHWESTERN  TARIFF  BUREAU  OF 


JOHN  W.  HINTON,  OF  MILWAUKEE 


MILWAUKEE  : 

Wisconsin  Legal  News,  430  and  432  Broadway 
1882. 


337 
6 3&tl 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

U.  of  I.  Library 


DEC 


2i 


33 


\ ?!  M 

J Ht  i 


5 1965 


¥ OF  ILLINOIS 
1RARY 


Book  Volume 

■183  St 

ECMMUCS 


J U . Mjf  132-* 


ADDRESS. 


■I 


Mr  President  and  Gentlemen: — 


You  will  not  expect  from  me  any  discussion  of  the  technicalities 

of  the  business  which  engages  our  attention.  It  is  not  from  me  that  you 
expect  to  be  instructed  as  to  the  relative  value  of  different  ores,  or  the 
comparative  advantage  of  different  methods  of  reducing  them.  I do  not 
know  one  ore  from  another;  I scarcely  know  a foundry  from  a bloomary. 
tou  cannot  expect  me  to  teach  what  I have  not  yet  begun  to  learn. 

Nevertheless,  I did  not  decline  the  invitation  of  your  committee  to  ad- 
dress you  on  this  occasion  I recognize  in  you  the  representation  of 
that  great  department  of  American  industry  which  has  already  invested  a 
capital  of  about  fifty  millions,  which  employs  about  one  hundred  thousand 
men  and  women,  and  which  produces  from  the  earth  about  one  million  tons 
,of  iron  annually.  Hence,  it  will  be  readily  conceded  that,  to  use  a very 
suggestive  westernism,  “you  are  some.” 

And  it  seems  to  me  it  might  not  be  wholly  unprofitable  to  spend  an  horn 
upon  the  inquiries— what  you  really  are,  what  you  ought  to  do,  and  what 
ought  to  be  done  with  you.  There  is  a type  of  American  opinion  which 
affects  to  regard  you  merely  as  the  proprietors  of  so  much  capital;  to  hold 
also,  that  capital  is  the  natural  enemy  of  labor,  and  thus  they  agree  that 
every  blow  struck  at  you  is  a blow  struck  in  defense  of  labor  and  at  its 
enemy.  With  all  such  believers  the  answer  to  the  second  and  third  in- 
quiries are  very  simple.  Of  course  if  you  are  the  inevitable  and  implacable 
enemies  of  labor,  the  best  thing  for  you  to  do  is  to  die;  and  the  best  thing 
to  be  done  with  you  is  to  bleed  you  to  death  as  soon  as  possible. 

But  surely  they  are  mistaken  who  teach  us  either  that  money  is  the 
natural  enemy  of  labor,  or  labor  the  natural  enemy  of  money.  True,  they 
may  be  made  such.  But  that  is  a false  and  perverted  state  of  society  in 
which  money  and  labor  are  at  enmity  with  each  other. 

So  construct  society  as  that  money  wants  no  labor  and  that  labor  can 
get  no  money,  and  you  will  at  once  create  an  antagonism  between  these 
two  members,  before  which  one  or  the  other,  if  not  both,  must  soon  fall. 
But  if  you  would  have  these  two  elements  of  the  national  wealth  to  be 
mutual  friends  and  not  enemies,  make  them  mutually  dependent  upon  each 
other — mutual  help  meets,  each  for  the  other. 

If  there  is  any  statesman  or  any  philanthropist  who  thinks  that  labor  has 
an  unequal  chance  in  the  struggle  with  money,  there  is  but  one  way  of 
relieving  it.  It  is  by  stimulating  and  encouraging  that  use  of  money  which 


Z G OGA 
y 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class 

337 


Book  Volume 

H83St 

ECONMIICS 


Ja  09-20M 


ftjr  i.twa 


ADDRESS. 


( ^ ^ V <(  S fi 

Mr  President  and  Gentlemen:— 

You  will  not  expect  from  me  any  discussion  of  the  technicalities 

of  the  business  which  engages  our  attention.  It  is  not  from  me  that  you 
expect  to  be  instructed  as  to  the  relative  value  of  different  ores,  or  the 
comparative  advantage  of  different  methods  of  reducing  them.  I do  not 
know  one  ore  from  another;  I scarcely  know  a foundry  from  a bloomary. 
tou  cannot  expect  me  to  teach  what  I have  not  yet  begun  to  learn. 

Nevertheless,  I did  not  decline  the  invitation  of  your  committee  to  ad- 
dress you  on  this  occasion  I recognize  in  you  the  representation  of 
that  great  department  of  American  industry  which  has  already  invested  a 


capital  of  about  fifty  millions,  which  employs  about  one  hundred  thousand 
men  and  women,  and  which  produces  from  the  earth  about  one  million  tons 
of  iron  annually.  Hence,  it  will  be  readily  conceded  that,  to  use  a very 
suggestive  westernism,  ‘ ‘you  are  some.  ” 

V And  it  seems  to  me  it  might  not  be  wholly  unprofitable  to  spend  an  houi 
i uPon  the  inquiries— what  you  really  are,  what  you  ought  to  do,  and  what 
ought  to  be  done  with  you.  There  is  a type  of  American  opinion  which 
t affects  to  regard  you  merely  as  the  proprietors  of  so  much  capital;  to  hold 
* also>  that  capital  is  the  natural  enemy  of  labor,  and  thus  they  agree  that 
every  blow  struck  at  you  is  a blow  struck  in  defense  of  labor  and  at  its 
i)  enemy.  With  all  such  believers  the  answer  to  the  second  and  third  in- 
quiries are  very  simple.  Of  course  if  you  are  the  inevitable  and  implacable 
enemies  of  labor,  the  best  thing  for  you  to  do  is  to  die;  and  the  best  thing 
to  be  done  with  you  is  to  bleed  you  to  death  as  soon  as  possible. 

But  surely  they  are  mistaken  who  teach  us  either  that  money  is  the 
natural  enemy  of  labor,  or  labor  the  natural  enemy  of  money.  True,  they 
may  be  made  such.  But  that  is  a false  and  perverted  state  of  society  in 
which  money  and  labor  are  at  enmity  with  each  other. 

So  construct  society  as  that  money  wants  no  labor  and  that  labor  can 
get  no  money,  and  you  will  at  once  create  an  antagonism  between  these 
two  members,  before  which  one  or  the  other,  if  not  both,  must  soon  fall. 
But  if  you  would  have  these  two  elements  of  the  national  wealth  to  be 
mutual  friends  and  not  enemies,  make  them  mutually  dependent  upon  each 
other— mutual  help  meets,  each  for  the  other. 


If  there  is  any  statesman  or  any  philanthropist  who  thinks  that  labor  has 
an  unequal  chance  in  the  struggle  with  money,  there  is  but  one  way  of 
relieving  it.  It  is  by  stimulating  and  encouraging  that  use  of  money  which 


V 


4 


7 


will  most  diversify  labor  and  multiply  the  demand  for  it;  that  is  a sure 
method  of  relief.  It  is  approved  not  more  by  the  teachings  of  the  political 
economist  than  by  the  experience  of  every  capitalist  and  of  every  laborer. 

The  more  money  needs  labor,  the  more  independent  is  the  latter  of  the 
former,  and  when  money  is  so  employed  as  that  it  can  no  more  thrive  with- 
out labor,  than  labor  can  ever  thrive  without  money,  then  the  two  are  upon 
a level,  and  there  is  no  longer  occasion  for  sympathy  with  either. 

It  seems  to  me  more  sensible  to  regard  you  as  the  employers  of  one 
hundred  thousand  laborers— American  laborers— producing  from  an  ore, 
worth  nothing  in  its  natural  state,  a million  tons  of  iron  annually,  worth 
forty  millions  of:  dollars — to  hold  37ou  collectively  responsible  for  the  con- 
tinual employment  of  that  labor,  and  personally  responsible  for  the  pay- 
ment of  it  I therefore  think  the  “American  Iron  and  Steel  Association” 
an  institution  to  be  cherished  and  not  destroyed  Certainly  it  seems  to  me 
if  he  who  causes  two  blades  of  grass  to  grow  where  but  one  grew  before 
can  be  called  a public  benefactor,  much  more  must  they  be  so  regarded 
who  from  a mass  of  unused  mineral,  annually  produce  a value  of  not  less 
than  forty  millions. 

The  American  people  have  just  subdued  the  first,  and  I trust  the  last, 
great  revolt  against  popular  sovereignty 

The  rebellion  with  which  they  had  to  struggle  was  not  only  the  most 
wanton,  the  best  matured  and  the  most  formidable  that  ever  assailed  a 
people,  but  the  victory  of  the  people  is  also  the  most  complete. 

The  capitol  of  the  insurgents,  after  four  years  spent  in  fortifying  it.  was 
taken,  not  by  siege,  but  by  assault.  Of  four  great  rebel  armies,  not  one 
was  dispersed;  but  each  one  in  terror  was  surrounded,  and  compelled,  with 
their  General  at  their  head,  to  surrender  as  prisoners  of  war.  And  the 
rebel  chief  himself,  flying  from  the  halter  which  would  not  be  cheated  of 
its  just  dues,  was  captured  not  exactly  in  theJast  ditch  where  he  threaten- 
ed to  be  found  - but  if  we  may  credit  prisoners’  accounts  of  rebel  destitu- 
tion, he  was  probably  caught  in  the  last  petticoat  which  his  wife’s  wardrobe 
could  supply. 

When  a few  weeks  since  the  army  of  Lee  was  driven  from  Eichmond, 
but  had  not  yet  surrendered,  our  enemies  upon  the  other  side  of  the  Atlan- 
tic. chuckling  over  the  hope  of  prolonged  guerilla  strife,  clamored  with  the 
prediction  that  the  United  States  had  but  just  emerged  upon  the  second  and 
most  difficult  stage  of  the  war.  The  peril  with  which  they  so  pleased  them- 
selves is  already  passed.  Guerillas  and  soldiers  are  alike  disarmed,  and 
await  the  justice  or  the  mercy  of  the  government  they  assailed.  Neverthe- 
less I do  think  the  danger  which  now  confronts  us  is  graver  than  any  we 
have  yet  encountered. 

The  storm  through  which  we  have  been  struggling  has  cast  us  upon  a 
mountain  of  debt.  The  United  States  will  owe  on  the  first  day  of  July 
next,  not  less  than  three  thousand  millions  of  dollars.  The  fact  should 
sober,  but  not  appal  us. 

This  debt  must  be  paid — there  is  no  alternative.  ; It  must  be  paid.  Every 


5 


dollar,  principal  and  interest,  .must  be  paid.  Repudiation ! American  integ- 
rity has  set  its  heel  upon  repudiation,  and  it  and  its  authors  are  hereafter 
for  all  time  infamous. 

Repudiation  was  whipped  with  the  rebellion.  It  will  be  gibetted  with  its 
Chief.  It  will  be  sent  back  with  -its  twin  furies,  Slavery  and  Secession,  to 
that  Tartarus  from  which  they  all  sprung.  Henceforth  the  word  has  no 
place  in  the  American  Lexicon.  A people  who  offered  up  their  lives  in  de- 
fense of  their  freedom,  will  not  hesitate,  if  need  be  to  sacrifice  their  estates, 
to  save  their  honor.  This  immense  debt  is  to  be  paid  And  what  is  equally 
certain  is,  that  the  American  people  must  work  it  out. 

It  cannot  be  paid  by  the  currency  now  in  circulation  It  cannot  be  paid 
by  the  transfer  of  existing  values.  The  money,  the  manufactures,  the 
minerals,  the  meadows  and  the  muscle  of  the  nation — These  are  not  the 
treasures  with  which  the  public  debt  is  to  be  liquidated . These  are 
the  implements  by  which  the  means  of  paying  the  debt  must  be  earned— 
the  National  debt  stands  charged  upon  the  national  industry.  It  must  be 
worked  out. 

Such  being  the  stern  necessity  resting  upon  American  labor.  The  ques- 
tion I put  to  you,  the  question  which  in  my  judgment  cannot  be  answered 
too  soon  by  the  American  People  is  this, — Shall  that  labor  be  exposed  to 
unrestricted  competition  with  the  half- paid  labor  of  Europe,  or  shall  it  be 
secured  in  the  franchise  of  supplying  the  American  market  so  far  as  it  can, 
of  ministering  to  American  wants,  and  developing  American  resources 
so  far  as  it  may  ? 

At  different  periods  in  the  former  history  of  our  country,  a policy  has 
been  strenously  urged  upon  it,  denominated  “Free  Trade.”  The  advocates 
of  that  policy  instruct  us  to  buy  where  we  can  buy  for  the  least  money, 
regardless  of  the  question  how  we  are  to  pay.  They  tell  us  it  is  unwise  to 
pay  $30  for  a ton  of  iron  in  Pennsylvania  when  we  can  procure  the  like  in 
Staffordshire  for  $20,  or  to  pay  ten  cents  for  a pound  of  cotton  in  Lowell 
when  we  might  procure  the  same  in  Manchester  for  eight  cents 

They  persuade  us  that  all  duties  imposed  upon  importation  for  the  pur- 
pose of  what  is  called  “protection,”  is  a burthen  upon  the  consumer;  that 
every  encouragement  given  to  American  manufacturers— is  a direct  injury 
done  to  American  Agriculture  The  theory  is  specious;  the  policy  plausi- 
ble. It  has  always  received  in  my  judgment,  much  too  large  a share  of 
the  public  favor.  But  whatever  may  be  its  intrinsic  merits,  it  seems  to  me 
now,  if  ever,  the  American  people  should  make  up  their  minds,  definitely 
either  to  adopt  or  reject  it.  Any  policy  is  better  than  no  policy.  Chronic 
free  trade  is  better  than  intermittent  protection.  I think  it  better  to  tell 
the  American  farmer  at  once  to  produce  what  he  can,  and  to  sell  wherever 
he  can  find  a purchaser,  than  to  offer  him  a market  this  year  in  New  York, 
and  send  him  next  year  to  Liverpool,  and  leave  him  without  a market  any- 
where the  year  after — better  to  tell  the  manufacturer  now,  to  put  out  his  fur- 
nace fires,  dismantle  his  mills  and  discharge  his  force,  and  hereafter  employ 
his  money  not  in  paying  labor,  but  in  skinning  it,  than  to  induce  him  by  the 


6 


promise  of  protection,  to  invest  millions  this  year  in  manufacturing,  only  i 
to  see  the  whole  sacrificed  next  year  by  the  mandate  of  Free  Trade. 
Better  to  tell  the  American  laborer  at  once  to  strip  himself  for  competition 
with  the  pauper  of  Europe,  and  bear  up  under  the  load  of  existence,  as  he 
may,  than  to  animate  him  to  feverish  exertion  one  year  by  offering  him  a 
diversity  of  employments,  and  paralyzing  all  exertion  next  year  by  with- 
drawing all  employment. 

The  experience  of  the  world  has  often  proved  that  communities  once 
thoroughly  instructed  not  to  hope  for  anything,  may  long  be  kept  quiet 
with  very  little.  It  is  the  alternate  kindling  and  quenching  of  hope,  which 
agitates  communities  and  shatters  States. 

I have  said  there  may  be  quiet  when  there  is  no  hope,  but  there  can  be 
no  growth  there,  least  of  all  can  there  be  any  great  achievement.  Nations 
which  grow,  and  which  do,  are  those  which  certainly  hope  and  fervently 
believe  ; with  whom  the  fruition  of  to-day  is  the  germ  of  to-morrow. 

This  nation,  we  have  already  seen,  has  something  to  do.  It  has  a debt  to 
pay.  And  so  I think,  instead  of  bidding  it  to  hope  nothing,  it  is  wiser  to 
bid  it  ‘ ‘ hope  all  things,  to  believe  all  things,  and  to  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good.”  But  what  is  good  ? Certainly  it  seems  to  me  good  in  times  like 
these,  when  so  much  is  to  be  achieved,  not  to  restrict  the  field  of  effort, 
but  to  expand  it. 

The  champions  of  free  trade  have  always  loudly  asserted  that  it  was  es- 
sential to  the  agricultural  interests,  that  all  direct  protection  given  to  the 
American  manufacturer,  was  an  inherent  wrong  done  to  the  American 
farmer.  The  state  I live  in  is  essentially  an  agricultural  state.  I profess 
myself  devoted  to  her  welfare.  I will  therefore  be  the  last  to  attack  a 
policy  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  the  agricultural  interests. 

Nay,  I think  in  whatever  community  I might  chance  to  live,  I could 
never  anywhere  be  unmindful  of  the  interests  of  agriculture.  I regard 
that  as  the  one  vocation  which,  more  than  any  other  in  the  whole  circle  of 
human  labor,  concerns  us  all. 

No  matter  in  what  channel  your  own  individual  effort  may  be  specially 
directed,  the  labor  of  the  farmer  precedes  it,  and  makes  it  possible.  In 
whatever  temple  the  industry  of  nations  may  be  gathered,  agriculture 
must  form  the  grand  porch  to  it.  Through  it  alone  can  any  industry  enter 
upon  the  gaze  of  the  world. 

Without  agriculture  there  can  be  no  manufactures,  no  commerce,  no 
mechanism  nor  art,  no  science  nor  song. 

Then  is  protection  given  to  domestic  manufactures,  an  injury  done  to 
agriculture  ?•  To  prove  the  affirmative  of  this,  volumes  of  tables  have  at 
different  times  been  published  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  duties  im- 
posed upon  foreign  manufactures,  with  a view  to  the  protection  of  our  own. 
enhance  the  cost  of  the  protected  article  to  the  farmer  who  is  the  principle 
consumer.  Columns  of  figures  have  been  piled  up  before  us,  to  show  the 
price  of  specific  commodities  at  periods  where  our  legislation  favored  pro- 
tection, and  of  the  same  articles  where  our  legislature  favored  the  policy  of 


7 


free  trade.  I do  not  reproduce  these  tables  for  two  reasons:  1st,  they  do 
not  establish  the  fact  of  enhanced  prices,  and  2d,  that  is  not  the  material 
fact  to  be  considered. 

They  do  not  establish  the  fact  of  enhanced  prices,  because  they  are  op- 
posed by  other  tables  equally  voluminous,  and  by  other  figures  equally  im- 
posing, showing  that  manufactured  articles  are  cheaper  in  our  markets 
under  the  policy  of  protection,  than  under  that  of  free  trade.  I do  not  re- 
ject their  testimony  upon  either  proposition.  On  the  contrary  I accept  it 
upon  both.  It  seems  very  clear  to  me  that  at  different  times,  and  under 
different  circumstances,  the  same  policy  must  exhibit  both  results.  It  seems 
very  clear  to  me  that  the  immediate  effect  of  protective  duties  must  be  to 
enhance  the  price  of  the  article  protected,  else  the  duty  will  not  be  protec- 
tive. But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  ultimate  effect  will  be.  the  same 
as  the  immediate  effect 

It  might  be  well  that  the  organized  capital  and  labor  engaged  in  the  iron 
manufactures  of  Scotland  and  Wales,  might  be  able  to  prevent  the  unor- 
ganized capital  and  labor*  of  the  United  States  from  erecting  a single  fur- 
nace in  Pennsylvania  or  Michigan,  and  yet,  when  labor  and  capital  had 
properly  organized,  iron  might  be  produced  from  the  mines  of  Pennsylvania 
and  Michigan  as  cheaply  as  it  could  be  delivered  there  from  the  mines 
of  Lanarkshire  or  Monmouthshire.  Indeed/ in  1740,  when  Great  Britain 
had  more  ore  and  more  fuel  and  as  much  unemployed  labor  as  she  now 
has,  the  whole  Empire  produced  but  17,350  tons  of  iron.  If  England  had 
never  given  to  that  interest  any  protection,  you  would  not  now  require  any 
protection  against  the  iron  manufactures  of  that  nation. 

But  ample  protection  was  afforded,  and  the  result  is  that  England,  Scot- 
land and  Wales,  with  an  area  less  than  double  that  of  Pennsylvania,  pro- 
duced in  1855  no  less  than  4,399,836  tons,  or  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  yield 
of  the  whole  world,  and  can  undersell  the  world.  But  our  mineral  de- 
posits are  much  richer  than  those  of  England,  as  our  territory  is  larger;  fuel 
here  is  as  much  more  abundant;  our  climate  as  healthy;  our  population 
as  hardy ; our  days  as  long. 

If  we  please  to  say  that  we  will  not  buy  the  product  of  British  mines, 
but  will  develope  our  own,  I do  not  understand  why  eventually  iron  could 
not  be  supplied  from  our  foundries,  as  cheaply  as  from  those  of  our  rival. 
I do  not  see  why  a like  policy,  tried  upon  a better  theatre,  should  not  yield 
at  least  as  good  results. 

But  the  vital  question  with  the  American  farmer  is  not  “can  he  buy  as 
much  iron  or  as  much  cloth  for  twenty  dollars,  under  the  policy  of  protec- 
tion as  under  that  of  free  trade,”  but  it  is  “can  he  buy  as  much  with  twenty 
bushels  of  wheat  or  of  corn  ?”  British  Guineas  and  American  Eagles  are 
not  among  the  crops  cultivated  by  the  farmer  of  Wisconsin  and  Illinois.  If 
they  were,  and  if  they  cultivated  nothing  else,  it  would  be  well  for  him  to 
consider  whether  he  could  buy  his  spades  and  shirts  for  less  money  in 
Birmingham  and  Manchester,  or  in  Lawrence  and  Pittsburg.  But  he  raises 
on  the  contrary,  corn  and  wheat,  and  pork  and  beef,  and  when  he  has  con- 


8 


clusively  settled  the  point,  that  he  can  do  more  with  twenty  dollars  undei 
the  free  trade  policy  than  under  the  opposite,  it  will  be  necessary  for  him 
to  consider  under  which  system  he  can  get  the  twenty  dollars  for  the  least 
grain  and  meat.  If  you  hire  your  manufacturing  done  in  England,  then 
you  must  send  your  bread  and  wheat  to  feed  the  operator  and  to  pay  for  his 
work.  There  it  will  find  its  market;  there  its  value  will  be  regulated,  but 
not  its  price.  Between  the  man  who  raises  corn  in  Illinois  and  the  man 
who  eats  it  in  Staffordshire,  an  army  of  traders,  forwarders,  common  car- 
riers and  brokers  intervene,  all  of  whom  must  be  employed  in,  and  paid  for, 
taking  the  corn  to  market  What  the  charges  are  for  this  service  I am  un- 
able to  state.  But  I notice  that  wheat  which  is  bought  in  Chicago  at  $1. 10 
is  sold  in  New  York  at  $1  58,  currency,  and  in  Liverpool  at  $1.95,  gold, 
worth  $2.50  -What  it  cost  to.  collect  the  wheat  in  Chicago  from  the  pro- 
ducer, or  to  distribute  it  to  the  consumer  from  Liverpool,  is  more  than  I 
know. 

But  it  is  very  clear  that  the  further  we  send  our  produce  to  market,  the 
more  it  costs  to  get  to  market,  and  if  it  be  marketed  in  England  the  farmer 
receives  not  more  than  one-third  of  what  the  consumer  pays;  the  other 
two-thirds  being  pocketed  by  the  traders,  the  commission  merchants  and 
forwarders,  for  protits,  commissions  and  freights.  But  the  farmer  is  told 
that  he  does  not  pay  these  charges;  that  he  finds  a purchaser  at  home  and 
gets  his  price,  and  |ill  this  accumulation  of  profits  is  paid  by  the  con- 
sumer in  England./ 

The  conclusion  seems  to  me  a mistaken  one.  England  pays  $2  50  per 
bushel  for  your  wheat,  because  it  is  worth  that  to  feed  to  the  operatives 
who  do  your  manufacturing.  If  it  is  worth  that  sum  to  feed  to  the 
operatives  in  England,  why  is  it  not  worth  as  much  for  the  same  use 
here  ? Nay,  more,  about  one-fourth  of  the  prime  cost  of  the  fabrics 
the  farmer  gets  in  exchange  is  made  up  of  provisions.  The  manufacturer 
pays  $2.50  per  bushel  for  Illinois  wheat,  and  charges  it  over  at  that  price 
to  the  fabrics  he  returns  in  exchange.  Thus  it  happens  that  the  wheat 
which  the  farmer  takes  to  Chicago,  and  sells  at  one  dollar  and  ten  cents, 
he  buys  back  in  Liverpool  at  $2.50,  in  the  shape  of  English  fabrics,  and 
pays  freight,  commissions  and  multiplied  profits  upon  the  return  cargo 

During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30th,  1861,  the  last  year  during 
which  our  foreign  trade  was  not  seriously  affected  by  the  war,  we  import- 
ed about  sixty-nine  millions  of  cotton,  woolen  and  iron  fabrics.  The 
whole  of  that  cotton  was  raised  in  our  own  country.  The  whole  of  the 
wool  and  iron  we  ought  to  have  raised.  Thus  American  industry  is  exhibi- 
ted in  the  unenviable  attitute  of  sending  its  own  cotton,  iron  and  wool  to 
England  to  be  manufactured.  We  paid  freight,  profit  and  charges  to  every 
man  who  touched  it;  we  sent  our  own  provisions  across  the  ocean  to  feed 
the  labor  which  worked  it  up;  we  paid  freight,  profit  and  charges  on  them; 
and  we  bought  the  finished  goods  back  again,  paying  similar  charges  on 
those. 

But  we  are  told  that  we  find' it  profitable  even  in  this  extravagant  pro- 


9 


i fcedure,  because  we  can  employ  European  labor  to  do  our  manufacturing 
jjo  much  cheaper  than  we  can  employ  our  own.  Yet  the  question  remains, 
can  we  work  men  and  women  in  England  cheaper  than  we  can  work  them 
here  ? But  we  are  told  the  men  and  women  are  in  England  and  not  here 
That  here  we  have  neither  the  capital,  nor  the  labor  to  do  our  own  manu- 
facturing. 

£ls  it  not  easier  to  import  the  workmen  than  to  import  the  work  of  his 
life-time  ? Is  it  not  easier  to  import  the  labor  and  the  capital,  if  needed, 
which  produced  the  sixty -nine  millions,  than  to  import  that  amount  of 
merchandise  annually,  during  the  life  of  the  producer?  But  you  say  the 
capital  a’nd  the  labor  is  wanted,  and  is  at  wotk  them  qpd  will  not  come 
here.  Yet  it  is  wanted  there,  because!  ydolgo tfcfe^ef to , use, it.  It  is  employed 
there,  because  you  go  there  <o  pay  it.  But  if  instead  of  subjecting  your- 
selves to  the  enormous  sacrifices  you  do  in  order  to  manufacture  goods  in 
England,  you  refuse  to  purchase  a dollar’s  worth  there— then  the  capital 
and  labor  which  produced  that  value  is  unproductive,  and  will  be  unem- 
ployed. If  then  you  say  to  that  unemployed  capital:  “with  each  million 
’ you  invest  in  the  United  States,  in  sites,  in  buildings  and  in  power,  you 
can  secure  as  much  productive  capacity  as  you  do  with  those  millions  in- 
' vested  there/”) I think,  it  will  be  glad  to  come  here,  as  much  of  it  does 
[ now  come,-#t5r  Railroad,  Banking  and  Mercantile  uses. 

Last  winter  I had  the  pleasure  of  dining  vwith  a party  of  gentlemen  in 
Washington,  among  whom  was  one  largely  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  spool  thread  in  England.  The  gentleman  whose  guests  we  were 
— himself  a banker,  and  one  of  the  ablest  men  it  has  been  my  good  fortune 
, to  meet — told  me  that  unless  the  United  States  reduced  the  duty  on  cotton 
thread,  it  was  the  opinion  of  that  manufacturer,  that  their  firm  would  be 
tcompelled  to  transfer  a portion  of  their  business  to  this  country. 

And  if  you  then  say  to  that  starved  and  toil-spent  laborer,  American 
days  have  as  many  hours  in  which  to  work  as  English  days,  and  American 
nights  have  as  many  hours  in  which  to  rest;  you  can  make  as  much 
’ cloth  in  an  hour  upon  the  Mississippi  as  upon  the  Mersey;  you  can  buy  as 
much  food  in  Chicago  for  one  dollar  as  you  can  buy  in  Liverpool  for  two; 
l and  you  can  sell  your  cloth  for  fifty  per  cent,  more  in  the  former  market 
; than  in  the  latter.  Proclaim  such  a gospel  to  them,  and  Europe  will  wit- 
• ness  such  an  exodus  of  her  crowded  populations,  as  has  not  been  seen 
-since  those  “great  multitudes  of  people  from  Galilee,  and  from  Decapolis, 
and  from  beyond  Jordan,’’  went  out  to  hear  the  older  gospel,  and  that 
only  one  fuller  of  beatitudes  than  this  I now  teach,  that  which  Christ  him- 
f self  preached  from  the  mountains.  /Thus  the  restrictions  we  would  impose 
1 upon  the  importation  of  foreign  fabrics,  would  become,  the  conduit  through 
which  we  would  draw  off  the  surplus  of  foreign  labor;  )and  the  protection 
we  would  decree  to  the  industry  of  this  nation  woulcf  become  a means  of 
blessing  to  the  labor  of  all  nations.  And  so  America  would  become,  in  a 
double  sense,  “the  home  of  the  free  and  the  asylum  of  the  oppressed.” 

“Then,”  to  use  the  words  of  the  Earl  Derby,  in  speaking  of  the  Am- 


10 


erican  people,  “there  will  be  open  to  them  again,  not  merely  the  same- 
course  of  power  and  prosperity  which  they  have  heretofore  pursued,  but  i 
they  will  pursue  that  course  of  power  and  prosperity  for  the  general  hap- 
piness of  mankind.” 

Nothing  is  more  certain  to  my  mind,  than  that  if  we  mean  American 
agriculture  shall  ever  prosper,  we  must  plant  manufactures  by  its  side.  I 
myself  remember  when  Maine,  the  state  in  which  I was  raised,  was  not  a 
manufacturing  state,  and  yet  Massachusetts  was.  And  I well  remember 
in  those  years,  that  caravans  of  our  young  men  and  young  women  went 
annually  to  Massachusetts  and  found  employment  in  the  factories  gnd  on 
the  farms  of  the  latter  state,  while  the  forests  of  Maine  were  unfelled,  her 
splendid  water  falls  were  unoccupied,  and  her  soil,  as  good  as  that  of 
Massachusetts,  was  untilled. 

What  I have  seen  in  the  history  of  Maine,  we  have  all  read  in  the  history 
of  England.  For  centuries  England  regarded  the  landed  interest  as  the 
one  deserving  her  special,  almost  her  only,  care  Her  mines  were  utterly 
rejected,  manufactures  were  frowned  upon,  everybody  was  encouraged  to 
raise  bread  and  meat. 

In  the  reign  of  Charles  II,  the  copper  mines  of  Cornwall  were  untouched, 
“nor,”  says  Macaulay,  “did  any  land  owner  take  them  into  account  in 
estimating  the  value  of  his  property.” 

Iron  was  early  manufactured  in  England.  Strabo  says  that  in  his  time 
iron  was  brought  frojn  England  into  Greece.  But  Macaulay  says,  “its 
manufacture  had  been  regarded  with  no  favorable  eye  by  the  government, 
and  by  the  public.”  He  added,  “The  rapid  consumption  of  wood  excited 
the  alarm  of  politicians  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Elizabeth;  there  had  been 
loud  complaints  that  whole  forests  were  cut  down  for  the  purpose  of  feed- 
ing the  furnaces,  and  the  parliament  had  interfered  to  prohibit  the  manufac- 
turers from  burning  timber.  ” 

And  yet  the  manufacture  which  so  alarmed  the  agricultural  interest  was 
so  insignificant,  that  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II,  nearly  17  cent- 
uries after  Strabo  died,  it  was  supposed  to  yield  only  about  ten  thousand 
tons  annually,  and  we  have  seen  that  nearly  a century  later,  the  yield  was 
but  a little  over  seventeen  thousand  tons.  But  while  agriculture  was  thus 
protected  against  the  encroachments  of  mining  and  manufactures,  how  did 
it  work  ? Let  Macaulay  answer: 

“In  the  year  1665,”  says  he,  “the  value  of  the  produce  of  the  soil  far  ex- 
ceeded the  value  of  all  the  other  fruits'  of  human  industr3T.  Yet  agri- 
culture was  in  what  would  be  now  considered  as  a very  rude  and  imperfect 
state.  The  arable  land  and  pasture  land  were  not  supposed  by  the  best 
political  arithmetician  of  the  age,  to  amount  to  much  more  than  half  the 
area  of  the  kingdom.  The  remainder  was  supposed  to  consist  of  moor, 
forest  and  fen.  These  computations  are  strongly  confirmed  by  the  road 
books  and  maps  of  the  seventeenth  century.  From  those  maps  and  books 
it  is  clear  that  many  routes  which  now  pass  through  an  endless  succession 
of  orchards,  hayfields  and  beanfields,  then  ran  through  nothing  but  heath, 
swamp  and  warren. 


11 


“In  drawings  of  English  landscapes  made  in  that  age  for  the  Grand  Duke 
Cosmo,  scarce  a hedgerow  is  seen,  and  numerous  tracts,  now  rich  with  cul- 
tivation, appear  as  bare  as  Salisbury  Plain.  At  Enfield,  hardly  out  of 
sight  of  the  smoke  of  the  capital,  was  a region  of  fivo  and  twenty  miles  in 
circumference,  which  contained  only  three  houses  and  scarcely  any  en- 
closed fields. 

“Deer,  as  free  as  in  an  American  forest,  wandered  there  by  thousands. 
It  is  to  be  remarked  that  wild  animals  of  larger  size  were  then  far  more 
numerous  than  at  the  present  time.  The  last  wild  boats,  indeed,  which 
had  been  preserved  for  the  royal  diversion,  and  had  been  allowed  to  ravage 
the  cultivated  land  with  their  tusks,  had  been  slaughtered  by  the  ex- 
asperated rustics  during  the  license  of  the  civil  war.  The  last  wolf  that 
has  roamed  our  island  had  been  killed  in  Scotland  a short  time  before  the 
close  of  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Second.  But  many  breeds  now  extinct 
or  rare,  both  of  quadrupeds  and  birds,  were  still  common.  The  fox, 
whose  life  is  in  many  counties  held  almost  as  sacred  as  that  of  a human 
being,  was  considered  as  a mere  nuisance  Oliver  St.  John  told  the  Long 
Parliament  that  Strafford  was  to  be  regarded,  not  as  a stag  or  a hare, 
to  whom  some  law  was  to  be  given,  but  as  a fox  who  was  to  be  snared  by 
any  means,  and  knocked  on  the  head  without  pity.  This  illustration 
would  be  by  no  means  a happy  one  if  addressed  to  country  gentlemen  of 
our  time;  but  in  Saint  John’s  davs  there  were  not  seldom  great  massacres 
of  foxes  to  which  the  peasantry  thronged  with  all  the  dogs  that  cou’d  be 
mustered;  traps  were  set;  nets  were  spread;  no  quarter  was  given;  and  to 
shoet  a female  with  cub  was  considered  a feat  which  merited  the  gratitute 
of  the  neighborhood.  The  red  deer  was  then  as  common  in  Gloucestershire 
and  Hampshire  as  they  now  are  among  the  Grampian  Hills.  On  one  oc- 
casion, Queen  Anne,  on  her  way  to  Portsmouth,  saw  a herd  of  not  less 
than  five  hundred.  The  wild  bull  with  his  white  mane  was  still  to  be  found 
wandering  in  a few  of  the  southern  forests,  the  badger  made  his  dark  and 
tortuous  hole  on  the  side  of  every  hill  where  the  copsewood  grew  thick. 
The  wildcats  were  frequently  heard  by  night  wailing  round  the  lodges  of 
the  rangers  of  Whittlebury  and  Needwood.  The  yellow-breasted  Martin 
was  still  pursued  in  Cranbourne  Chase  for  his  fur,  reported  inferior  only  to 
that  of  the  Sable.  Few  Eagles  measuring  more  than  nine  feet,  between 
the  extremities  of  the  wings,  preyed  on  fish  along  the  coast  of  Norfolk. 
On  all  the  downs,  from  the  British  Channel  to  Yorkshire,  huge  Bustards 
strayed  in  troops  of  fifty  or  sixty,  and  were  often  hunted  with  greyhounds. 
The  marshes  of  Cambridgeshire  and  Lincolnshire  were  covered  during  some 
months  of  every  year  by  immense  clouds  of  Cranes.” 

Such  was  the  state  of  agriculture  in  England  when  she  had  no  manu- 
factures. 

Down  to  a period  later  than  this,  manufactures  have  no  place  in  the 
history  of  England.  And  yet  wheat,  flour  and  fresh  meat  could  only  be 
eaten  by  the  wealthy.  The  horses  of  England  were  computed  to  be  worth 
only  about  fifty  shillings  each. 

Sir  John  Fenwick,  speaking  of  the  horses  of  that  country  which  has  since 
produced  Childers  and  Eclipse,  declared  that  “ the  meanest  hack  ever  im- 


ported  from  Tangier  would  produce  a finer  progeny  than  could  be  expected 
from  the  best  sire  of  native  breed.” 

British  manufactures  are  in  fact  the  growth  of  the  last  century,  and  in 
that  time  the  growth  of  agriculture  has  kept  even  pace  with  the  growth  of 
manufactures.  During  the  last  century,  Parliament  has  passed  more  than 
four  thousand  acts  for  the  enclosure  of  so  many  portions  of  those  waste 
commons,  and  Macaulay  estimates  that  a fourth  part  of  England  has  in 
that  time  been  turned  from  a wild  into  a garden. 

Instructed  by  such  lessons,  an  eminent  American  writer  upon  political 
science,  declares  “that  manufactures  always  precede  and  never  follow  the 
creation  of  a real  agriculture.  In  the  absence  of  the  former,  all  attempts 
at  cultivation  are  limited  to  the  work  of  tearing  out  and  exporting  the  soil 
in  the  form  of  rude  products.  The  country  that  pursues  this  policy,  always 
ending  in  the  exportation , or  annihilation  of  men.''  “Give  to  Turkey,”  he  says, 
“the  power  to  develope  her  vast  natural  resources — enable  her  to  make 
her  own  cloth — and  a real  agriculture  will  then  arise  that  will  render  the 
plains  of  Thrace  and  Macedonia  even  more  productive.” 

And  again,  speaking  of  Brazil,  the  same  author  says:  “Agriculture  is  the 
last  of  all  the  sciences  to  attain  development.  It  follows  always  in  the 
wake  of  manufactures,  and  if  Brazil  would  improve  her  cultivation,  she  can 
do  so  on  no  other  condition  than  that  of  placing  the  hammer  and  the  loom 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  plough  and  the  harrow.” 

If  you  seek  a policy  for  this  country,  which  shall  most  effectually  dwarf 
development  here,  and  most  vigorously  repress  the  hope  of  labor  every- 
where, which  dooms  all  American  labor  to  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  and 
besides,  to  a dependence  upon  Europe  for  its  means  and  its  market,  and  at 
the  same  time  discourages  the  emigration  of  foreign  labor,  hopelessly 
binding  it  to  its  present  unrequited  toil,  the  policy  of  free  trade  will  do  it. 

But  for  myself,  I cannot  help  but  look  hopefully  on  the  immense  resources 
of  our  country,  yet  undeveloped — her  forests  yet  unfelled,  her  prairies  and 
fields  yet  unploughed,  her  mines  unworked,  her  unrivalled  water  falls 
clamoring  for  employment.  I think  them  all  designed  for  the  use  of  man. 
I look  for  men  to  use  them. 

I think  it  wrong  to  dedicate  this  great  country  to  one  branch  of  industry 
alone — rather  let  all  industries  find  their  home  here. 

I cannot  unite  with  those  who  exclaim,  “America  for  white  men,”  my  cry 
is  rather  “ all  men  for  America.” 

Let  us  lift  ourselves  out  of  this  atmosphere  of  mere  blind  prejudice.  I 
put  it  to  you,  who  ought  to  know  something  about  the  value  of  human 
forces— did  you  ever  know  anything  so  monstrously  stupid  as  that,  a peo- 
ple who  were  forced  to  strain  every  sinew  to  the  verge  of  cracking,  to  save 
their  own  lives  from  armed  rebellion,  should  yet  object  to  negroes  fighting 
for  them?  Marvellous  as  that  seems,  I can  tell  you  something  even  more 
marvellous.  There  were,  two  years  since,  when  we  required  a million  of 
men  for  military  purposes,  and  unlimited  millions  for  industrial  purposes, 
men  who  seriously  argued,  that  we  ought  to  export  four  millions  of  indur- 
ated muscle,  mured  and  educated  to  toil,  for  no  reason  under  God’s 


« 

\ 


13 


Heavens,  save  that  it  was  out  of  style,  and  offended  our  tastes.  Fashion, 
I suppose,  must  be  allowed  to  dictate  the  color  of  a dress,  for  it  was  always 
done  so.  But  it  never  attempted  to  dictate  the  color  of  a barn  shovel. 
Why  should  it  control  in  the  complexion  of  him  who  makes  or  uses  the 
shovel. 

How  must  the  genius  of  America  regard  us  when  she  sees  us  sending  to 
the  uttermost  ends  of  the  earth  for  hoes  to  do  our  planting  with,  and  send- 
ing also  the  men  and  women  who  use  them  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
Sending  labor  into  all  the  world,  and  buying  its  products  from  all  the 
world? 

Oh  Gentlemen!  I fear  you  will  think  me  visionary  and  fanatical,  but  I 
must  say  one  thing  to  you,  if  I perish  for  saying  it.  Look  at  this  young 
giant  country  of  yours  spanning  a continent.  Figures  cannot  calculate,  nor 
can  imagination  conceive  the  stretch  of  its  capabilities. 

If  you  watch,  you  may  feel  it  writhe  with  dormant  energies  longing  for 
exercise;  if  you  listen  you  may  hear  it  everywhere,  bursting  with  pent 
up  life,  as  if  Spring  time  here  was  a monthly,  and  was  indigenous  to  the 
soil.  You  are  for  the  time  stewards  of  all  this  capacity. 

In  a hundred  ways  peculiar  to  Himself,  God  is  pressing  you  with  the 
question,  will  you  develop  that  capacity,  or  will  you  smother  it?  And  if  you 
will  develop  it,  the  one  thing,  I ache  to  say  to  you  in  spite  of  the  peril  at 
which  I know  such  things  are  said,  is  this:  you  never  can  fitly  develop  this 
country;  no  never,  until  you  recognize  every  human  being  who  can  wield 
a spade  or  drive  a shuttle,  and  who  will  do  it,  as  of  right  belonging  to  the 
brotherhood  of  man. 

Don’t  tell  me  that  millions  of  these  creatures  disgrace  that  brotherhood. 
I know  that.  I know  that.  Whose  fault  is  it?  Whose  fault  is  it  that  there 
are  rotten  beams  in  the  house  in  which  you  dwell,  whose  mouldering  smell 
offends  you?  The  fault  of  him  who  made  the  house.  Whose  fault  is  it 
that  folly  and  shiftlessness  and  depravity  exist  in  society,  if  it  be  not  the 
fault  of  those  who  make  society?  A rotten  beam  cannot  be  cured,  but 
must  be  replaced.  A defective  member  of  society  may  be  cured.  The 
society  which  surrounds  Victoria  is  the  outgrowth  of  that  which  surrounded 
Charles  II.  You  wTho  have  wealth  and  learning,  and  observation— you  wdio 
have  power  and  influence — you  who  are  generals  in  the  fight,  w ho  sit  upon 
the  high  lands  with  glasses  to  your  eyes,  you  are  responsible  for  the  move- 
ment of  the  army,  and  you  must  so  direct  it  as  to  save  it.  Do  you  despise 
the  mole  because  in  spite  of  its  constant  flutter  of  motion,  it  really  makes 
but  little  progress?  How  do  you  know  if  it  could  see  like  the  lynxs,  it 
would  not  spring  like  the  lynx?  If  you  think  the  “masses,”  as  we  call 
them,  grovel,  get  off  from  them.  Let  them  stand  up— lift  them  if  neces- 
sary. Give  them  to  see.  “Let  there  be  light.”  The  first  order  which  the 
Omnipotent  ever  issued  is  still  in  force.  Obey  it. 

Don’t  mistake  me.  I am  a leveler!  But  I want  to  level  up,  not  dowm. 

I know  that  in  physical  geography  the  mountains  are  bare,  rugged  and 
wild,  while  the  valleys  alone  teem  with  verdure  .and  fruit. 

But  it  is  otherwise  in  the  social  geography.  There  culture  is  found  on 


14 


the  heights,  and  sterility  in  the  lowlands — consequently  I would  have  the  \ I 
low  places  elevated,  and  all  that  is  lofty,  stand.  Is  that  a dream?  Can 
not  that  be  realized?  Look  upon  this  planet,  upon  which  God's  Providence 
has  dropped  you.  See  how  incomplete  it  is.  How  much  there  is,  after  all, 
to  be  done.  Is  it  possible  that  in  such  a world  any  man  with  clear  vision 
and  good  digestion  need  suffer  from  want. 

The  American  farmer  must  remember  that  so  long  as  he  consents  to  a 
free  interchange  of  commodities  with  foreign  labor  he  must  work  for  foreign 
prices/  While  he  raises  bread  and  meat  to  exchange  for  British  manufac- 
tures, he  is  as  much  in  the  employ  of  the  British  manufacturer  as  the  oper- 
ative himself.  He  does  not  indeed  work  by  the  day,-  but  by  the  piece. 

The  men  who  regulate  the  wages  of  the  factory  hand  will  control  the 
wages  of  the  farm  hand.  And  no  one  must  imagine  that  while  they  dole 
out  to  the  former  wages  which  barely  support  existence,  they  will  pour  out 
to  the  latter  wages  which  will  command  wealth.  If  they  have  not  loved 
the  English  operative  whom  they  have  seen,  how  shall  they  love  the 
American  farmer  whom  they  have  not  seen  ? 

Cl  am  therefore  for  having  the  work  of  the  United  States  done  in  the 
United  States,  and  I favor  the  importation  of  men  rather  than  of  material,  of 
workmen  rather  than  of  their  products^ 

But  there  is  another  reason  why  I think  this  question  is  now  pressed  upon 
our  attention  with  unusual  force  and  solemnity.  The  debt  to  which  I have 
already  alluded,  is  now  for  the  most  part  held  at  home.  It  exists  mainly 
in  the  shape  of  government  bonds,  drawing  what  is  considered  in  Europe  a 
high  rate  of  interest.  Nevertheless  they  have  found  but  a very  reluctant 
market  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The  Almighty,  who  will  have 
even  “the  wrath  6f  men  to  praise  him,”  has  so  ordered  that  our  enemies 
have  been  compelled  to  serve  our  cause  by  decrying  the  stability  of  our 
government  and  declaiming  against  the  worthlessness  of  our  credit.  So  it 
has  happened  most  fortunately  for  us  that  our  debt  has  been  left  upon  our 
own  hands.  It  is  distributed  throughout  the  country— God  grant  that  it 
may  remain  there.  While  it  remains  with  us  it  constitutes  a part  of  the 
national  resources,  the  earning  of  which  must  help  pay  the  interest  and 
the  principal  of  the  debt.  While  it  remains  with  us  there  is  no  danger  but 
the  debt  will  be  paid  No  corporation,  I take  it,  ever  yet  failed  or  ever  will 
fail  to  pay  its  debts  if  it  owes  nothing  beyond  the  circle  of  its  stockholders 
and  if  its  stockholders  are  personally  liable  for  its  debts. 

But  it  seems  to  me  there  is  imminent  danger  that  this  debt  will  not  long 
remain  in  our  own  hands.  The  stability  of  our  government  is  already  as- 
sured. It  is  already  demonstrated  by  events,  the  most  conclusive  of  all 
witnesses,  that  as  against  open  force,  this  is  the  strongest  government 
that  man  has  yet  devised  Events  have  transpired  within  the  last  four 
years,  and  even  within  the  last  sixty  days,  which  would  have  shattered  any 
other  government  to  atoms.  They  have  simply  driven  us  more  Jfifmly  to- 
gether. The  s' ability  of  our  government  is  assured;  our  enemies  acknow- 
ledge that.  It  seems  to  me  inevitable  that  our  securities  must  soon  be 
eagerly  sought  for  abroad.  Indeed  we  are  already  told  that  three  hundred 


15 


millions  of  our  five-twenty  bonds  are  owned  in  Germany  alone.  We  are 
already  told  that  with  the  decline  of  gold,  and  our  reviving  credit,  foreign 
exchange  was  in  our  favor.  Nay,  it  seems  to  me  certain  that  when  our 
stocks  are  taken  day  after  day,  to  an  amount  ranging  from  thirteen  to 
thirty  millions,  they  must  be  purchased  in  view  of  a foreign  demand.  If 
those  bonds  are  transferred  to  Europe  in  exchange  for  cash,  which  is 
brought  here,  we  can  have  little  objection  to  make.  We  shall  have  the 
money  in  our  pockets  instead  of  the  bonds  in  our  port-folios.  But  when 
they  are  saleable  in  Europe  for  money,  they  are  negotiable  for  goods. 
They  become  not  only  a purchasable,  but  a purchasing  commodity. 

Injurious  and  ruinous  as  I believe  the  policy  of  free  trade  to  be  to  a 
country  like  this  at  all  times,  yet,  in  ordinary  times,  the  people  have  one 
protection  against  its  ill  effects.  England  is  shrewd  enough  to  know  that  ’ 
an  agricultural  people  who  go  four  thousand  miles  to  market  their  products 
and  buy  their  fabrics,  are  limited  in  their  ability  to  pay.  Hence,  so  long  as 
we  purchasa  solely  in  reliance  upon  the  anticipated  yield  of  our  agriculture, 
our  credit  and  consequently  our  ability  to  buy  is  limited.  Your  annual 
purchases  must  be  measurably  controlled  by  your  annual  earnings.  That 
control  no  longer  exists.  We  have,  as  I said,  an  accumulated  capital  of 
$3,500,000,000.  Our  ability  to  buy  is  ten-fold  of  what  it  ever  was.  Europe 
has  a double  incentive  to  deal  with  us,  she  wants  a market  for  her  goods, 
and  she  wants  to  get  hold  of  our  bonds.  When  those  bonds  shall  have 
been  transferred  to  Europe,  and  we  have  consumed  their  value  in  her  pro- 
ducts, then  the  nation  will  have  nothing  to  show  for  them,  and  still  will  have 
them  to  pay.  I confess  I look  not  without  alarm  to  our  foreign  commerce 
for  the  next  six  months.  If  the  debt  of  England  was  held  abroad  no' 
sensible  man  believes  it  could  ever  be  paid.  If  the  American  debt  shall 
come  to  be  transferred  to  foreign  holders  in  exchange  for  the  products  of 
foreign  labor,  which  we  ought  to  produce  here,  and  shall  thus  be  spent  in 
riotous  living,  who  can  look  upon  our  future  without  misgiving  ? Who  is  so 
daring  as  that  his  fears  will  not  suggest  a day  when  the  powers  of  Europe 
may  combine  to  collect  the  suspended  debt  of  America,  as  some  of  them 
recently  combined  to  collect  the  suspended  debt  of  Mexico. 

Already  you  have  noticed  that  those  organs  of  British  sentiment  which 
have  exhibited  most  hostility  to  us  during  this  great  struggle,  now,  as  they 
take  occasion  to  correct  their  position,  congratulate  us  upon  our  past 
achievements  and  flatter  us  with  predictions  of  coming  glory,  are  careful 
to  accompany  their  predictions  with  the  expressed  condition  that  we  shall 
“adopt  liberal  tariffs  ” Let  them  not  be  disappointed.  Give  them  a 
liberal  tariff  A tariff  liberal  first  of  all  to  that  indomitable  Ameiican  mus- 
cle which  ha«,  by  its  great  agony  and  bloody  sweat,  for  the  second  time 
achieved  its  independence;  it  demands  at  your  hands  employment  and  re- 
muneration. L beral  most  to  that  mass  of  enthralled  and  oppressed  labor, 
which  in  Europe  waits  for  emancipation  and  transmigration. 

It  was  formerly  the  habit  of  those  who  assailed  the  cause  of  domestic 
manufacture  to  denounce  them  as  “monopolies,”  and  I regret  to  find  in  one 
of  the  newspapers  of  this  city  an  extract  from  the  New  York  Commercial 


Advertiser , which  gives  some  evidence  that  the  habit  is  not  yet  wholly 
abandoned. 

I produce  the  extract  because  it  indulges  in  this  very  habit,  and  because 
also  it  has  reference  to  the  very  occasion  on  which  we  are  assembled.  It 
is  as  follows: — 

“The  partisans  of  protection,  apparently  fearing  that  the  end  of  that 
policy  is  approaching,  have  lately  shown  unusual  activity.  The  National 
Iron  and  Steel  Association  have  just  published  a call  for  their  next  quarter- 
ly meeting,  which  is  to  be  held  in  Chicago  the  24th  instant.  We  call  the 
attention  of  the  people  of  Chicago  to  that  meeting,  at  which,  it  is  said, 
matters  of  very  grave  importance  will  be  brought  forward  for  consideration* 
which  forbodes  no  good  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  for  meetings  of 
monopolists  are  rarely  held  except  with  a view  to  increase  or  perpetuate 
existing  unjust  legislative  privileges.” 

Undoubtedly  gentlemen!  monopolists  have  existed;  undoubtedly  they  do 
still  exist.  Elizabeth  gave  to  one  favorite  the  right  to  deal  in  currants,  to 
another  the  right  to  deal  in  salt,  to  another  the  right  to  deal  in  iron,  and 
each  of  those  patents  excluded  every  other  subject  of  the  realm  from 
participating  in  the  trade.  James  I,  by  similar  patents,  confined  five-sixths 
of  the  whole  trade  of  England  to  the  city  of  London,  and  the  whole  trade 
of  London  was  confined  to  about  200  citizens.  The  State  of  New  Jersey 
has  conferred  upon  a single  railway  company  the  right  to  carry  passengers 
within  her  limits.  These  are  monopolies.  They  are  shackles  upon  individ- 
ual effort,  and  direct  discouragements  to  public  enterprise.  But  is  that  a 
monopoly  by  which  the  people  of  a country  reserve  to  themselves  the 
right  to  do  their  own  work,  leaving  every  individual  in  the  country  at  liber- 
ty to  engage  in  it  or  not  as  he  chooses  ? * 

If  you  were  asked  to  confer  upon  a single  company,  or  a single  community 
the  right  to  make  iron,  or  roll  it,  to  spin  cotton,  or  weave  it,  that  would  be 
a monopoly,  and  that  you  ought  to  resist.  But  you  are  asked  simply  to  de- 
clare that  the  people  of  the  United  States  may  do  the  manufacturing  for  the 
United  States.  We  know,  indeed,  that  only  a portion  of  the  people  will  en- 
gage in  it,  notwithstanding  all  are  free  to  do  so.  But  if  that  portion  of  the 
people  who  engage  in  manufactures  are  to  be  stigmatized  as  monopolists, 
why  should  not  that  portion  who  engage  in  commerce  or  in  agriculture  be  also 
stigmatized  in  the  same  way  ? If  you  use  fabrics,  somebody  must  make 
them.  If  they  are  not  made  here,  they  will  be  made  abroad.  Is  a foreign 
monopoly  more  acceptable  to  us  than  a domestic  one?  But  you  say  we  are 
asked  to  impose  high  duties,  and  thus  to  confine  our  manufacturing  to  our 
own  country,  and  that  is  the  creation  of  exclusive  privilege.  Yes,  but  on  the 
other  hand  you  are  asked  to  impose  no  duties,  and  that  will  confine  our 
manufacturing  to  foreign  countries.  The  mandate  of  free  trade,  as  much 
as  that  of  protection,  results  in  the  same  kind  of  exclusive  privilege.5 

The  difference  is  this.  The  latter  excludes  the  labor  of  foreign  countries, 
while  the  former  excludes  the  labor  of  our  own.  A people,  standing  before 
the  awful  responsibilities  which  confront  us,  ought  to  quit  that  style  of 
argument.  If  we  can’t  show  protection  to  be  a bad  thing,  let  us  abandon 


17 


the  effort  to  give  it  a bad  name.  Whatever  wrongs  may  result  from  the 
policy  of  protection,  monopoly  is  not  one  of  them. 

Gentlemen!  You  may  have  thought  me,  in  a portion  of  these  remarks, 
somewhat  impracticable  and  utopian.  I am  myself  concious  of  a slight 
exposure  in  that  direction.  But  I will  in  conclusion  submit  a few  observa- 
tions as  practicable  as  a pile  driven  drill. 

And  first,  let  me  say  to  you,  if  you  want  a tariff  for  protection,  you  must 
in  that  case  get  it.  Don’t  you  go  to  sleep  upon  that  popular  fallacy,  ex- 
ceeding soft  as  it  is,  that,  because  a thing  ought  to  be  done,  therefore  it 
will  be  done. 

Pope’s  aphorism,  that  “whatever  is,  is  right”  is  extremely  agreeable,  as  a 
lullaby,  but  it  will  hardly  do  for  capitalists  to  invest  their  money  in. 

If  you  would  have  duties  imposed  for  the  protection  of  American  industry 
you  must  ask  for  them.  Congress  is  composed  of  men.  And  they  are 
representative  men.  They  do  not  like  to  do  what  their  constituents  do  not 
demand.  For  they  may  get  punished  for  it.  I cannot  promise  that  if  you 
seek  in  Congress  you  shall  find;  but  I can  safely  promise  that  if  you  do  not 
seek,  and  seek  diligently,  you  will  not  find  anything  very  good  unless  you 
are  lucky.  A member  of  Congress  cannot  always  foreknow  just  what  his 
constituents  will  approve,  and  a prudent  one  will  be  very  apt  to  wait,  to 
learn  what  they  ask  for,  rather  than  to  investigate  for  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaining what  they  need.  / 

Besides,  you  must  not  forget  that  there  is  an  interest  opposed  do  yours  as 
I considered  it  here.  It  is  a large,  active,  commanding  interest.  I mean  the 
commercial  interest;  that  interest  which  bears  not  as  much  upon  the  volume 
of  production,  as  upon  its  movement,  which  lives  not  by  the  creation  of 
commodities,  but  by  transferring  them  from  one  place  to  another.  Whether 
much  or  little  be  produced,  commerce  desires  it  all  to  be  active;  and  the  less 
bulky  the  product,  the  more  sprightly  commerce  expects  it  to  be.  The 
oftener  it  is  handled,  and  the  farther  it  is  carried,  the  larger  the  tolls  pock- 
eted by  commerce,  and  the  less  of  the  commodity  left  to  the  producer. 

This  interest  is  your  antagonist,  and  it  is  a powerful  one.  I do  nof;  dis- 
guise from  you  that  the  odds  are  against  you.  Over  eleven  hundred  millions 
of  dollars  were  returned  in  1860,  as  invested  in  the  construction  of  railroads 
in  the  United  States.  Besides,  the  tonnage  of  the  United  States  was  over 
five  millions  of  tons.  Here  is  a total  investment  of  1,500  millions  in  the 
forwarding  business.  The  interest  on  this  and  the  cost  of  running  and 
keeping  in  repair  will  amount  to  not  less  than  $250,000,000  annually.  This 
must  be  paid  by  manufacturers  and  farmers,  by  those  who  create  commod- 
ities to  sell,  and  who  must  move  them  until  they  find  a market.  So  you  see 
it  costs  us  about  four  times  as  much  to  do  our  marketing  as  it  does  in  time 
of  peace  to  support  our  government. 

And  a curious  feature  about  this  commerce  is  this,  that  the  more  it  has 
to  do  the  higher  it  charges  for  its  work.  Where  agriculture  has  a great 
many  bushels  to  sell,  it  asks  but  little  for  each  bushel.  But  the  more 
bushels  commerce  has  to  carry,  the  more  it  exacts  for  carrying  a bushel. 
But  you  must  not  imagine,  that  because  this  commercial  interest  is  at  some 


18 

points  in  antagonism  to  yours,  that  it,  therefore,  is  in  antagonism  to  all 
human  interests. 

Commerce  has  its  legitimate  vocation,  and  is  a necessity.  Its  true  vocation 
is  to  exchange  what  you  do  create  and  don’t  use,  for  what  you  can’t  create 
and  do  want.  If  you  employ  it  for  other  purposes,  it  is  your  fault,  and  not 
the  fault  of  commerce.  It  exists,  and  must  exist  and  will  ask  to  do  all  it 
can.  And  if  it  can  persuade  the  Illinois  farmer,  that  his  wheat  can  never 
make  flour,  until  it  has  been  to  Birmingham  and  back,  it  violates  no  statute 
in  doing  so.  Our  penal  codes  are  not  yet  aimed  at  humbug.  I regret  that 
it  is  so.  There  is  no  crime  I would  be  as  willing  to  see  punished  capitally. 
But  so  it  is.  Humbug  has  protection  which  labor  has  not,  and  humbug 
thrives  as  labor  never  will,  until  it  is  amply  protected.  Don’t  abuse  the 
carpenter  who  persuades  you  to  allow  a great  deal  of  ornament  to  the  finish 
of  the  house,  which  has  no  real  beauty  or  use.  Pay  his  bill  and  be  wiser 
next  time. 

And  if  Commerce  persuades  the  Western  farmerthat  his  welfare  depends 
upon  his  going  to  Lynn  for  his  shoes,  and  to  Manchester  for  his  shirts  why 
let  us  hope  he  will  go  pleasantly  and  enjoy  his  journey.  I do  think  it 
wrong  to  be  so  credulous.  I do  think  it  wrong  to  practice  on  such  credul- 
ity, but  then  I think  it  wrong  to  be  so  credulous.  If  you  say  it  is  knavish  to 
practice  such  deception,  I say  it  is  foolish  to  be  mislead  by  it.  If  you  say 
such  folly  can't  be  helped,  I say  it  can  be  helped  as  easily  as  such  knavery 
can.  If  you  say  God  made  the  fool  and  He  is  not  responsible,  I answer, 
the  same  God  made  the  knave.  I don't  believe  the  God  we  worship  made 
either,  but  they  somehow  exist  in  spite  of  Him. 

I don’t  ask  you  to  make  war  upon  the  commercial  interest,  but  simply  to  Dok 
out  for  it.  It  would  rather  bring  our  iron  from  England  than  from  Michigan, 
because  it  can  make  more  money  by  doing  it.  And  it  shows  this  feeling, 
and  will  be  aided  in  this  enterprise  by  a large  foreign  commercial  interest, 
also  employed  in  our  carrying  business. 

The  total  tonnage  of  vessels  entering  at,  and  clearing  from  the  ports  of  the 
United  States  during  the  year  ending  June  30th,  1861,  was  something  more 
than  fourteen  millions,  of  this  nearly  four  and  one-half  millions  were  foreign. 
The  owners  of  this  tonnage  will  add  their  testimony  to  that  of  your  own 
fellow  citizens,  who  would  persuade  you  that  our  farmers  cannot  support 
manufactures  except  at  a great  distance  from  them.  And  to  all  this  will  be 
addrd  the  fierce  exclamations  of  the  whole  body  of  foreign  mill  owners, 
loudly  protesting  against  the  il liberality  of  attempting  to  secure  to  American 
labor,  better  wages  than  are  paid  to  British  labor. 

In  the  contest  of  this  triple  alliance,  your  only  support  is  to  be  found  in 
the  agriculture  of  the  country,  And  unfortunately  it  happens  that  not 
every  farmer  is  educated  in  the  whole  science  of  political  economy.  Moreover 
the  argument  in  favor  of  free  trade  is  patent  and  palpable.  The  direct  effect  of 
protective  duties  upon  the  price  of  manufactured  commodities  is  rarely  appre- 
hended. Observation  teaches  that.  It  requires  calculation,  inductive  reasoning 
and  faith,  to  disclose  the  ultimate  effect  of  the  same,  both  upon  manufactured 
products  and  upon  agricultural. 

Wot  upon  these  points  alone,  but  upon  all  points,  the  American  people  need  a 
higher  education.  Teach  them — “give  them  line  upon  line  and  precept  upon 
precept.”  Be  patient  and  be  brave. 


